this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
225 points (97.1% liked)

News

22869 readers
4092 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The rulings in Maryland and Oregon come amid a shifting legal landscape in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that has imposed new limits on gun regulation.

In the wake of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that significantly limits what the government can do to restrict guns, states led by Democrats have scrambled to circumvent or test the limits of the ruling. A few have approved new gun restrictions. Oregon even passed a ballot initiative to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines.

But this week, supporters of the new gun measures suffered a pair of setbacks, underscoring the rippling effect of the court’s decision.

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., ruled that a 10-year-old Maryland law related to licensing requirements for handguns was unconstitutional.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 80 points 9 months ago (11 children)

Under the Maryland law, an applicant for a handgun license must meet four requirements. They must be at least 21 years old, a resident of the state, complete a gun safety course and undergo a background check to ensure they are not barred under federal or state law from owning a firearm.

An applicant must then fill out an application, pay a processing fee, and wait up to 30 days for a state official to issue a license.

The appeals court ruled that requiring applicants to wait up to 30 days for a handgun permit violated the constitutional rights of citizens, and “the law’s waiting period could well be the critical time in which the applicant expects to face danger.”

I fucking hate these cretins in our judiciary.

[–] Uglyhead@lemmy.world 41 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Critical time where the applicant expects to face danger

I needs my guns the minute I needs them. Vending machines full of guns should be on every street corner so I have access to the firepower and ammunition I need at all times.

[–] PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

-Andrew Ryan, founder of Rapture

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)
[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"We put the fun in no refund"

[–] rostby@lemmy.fmhy.net 2 points 9 months ago

“Be the bee”

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] farcaster@lemmy.world 34 points 9 months ago (10 children)

Citizens wouldn't be facing so much danger if we didn't have guns everywhere..

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Whoresradish@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I am more offended by them saying you have to be 21 years old. If you are old enough to be drafted for the military then you should be old enough to have a firearm. Same with the right to vote.

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

You should have to be older to be drafted (or get rid of the draft entirely, which is my opinion).

Having the right to vote I don't think should confer you automatic rights to own a firearm. Voting is a much more powerful right in the first place.

Now, if you pay taxes on wages at all, you should be given the right to vote, such as working 16 year olds.

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

This is basically how gun laws have worked in Canada for ages. Treating access to guns the same way you do cars just makes sense. Of course the ease of being able to smuggle weapons bought from the unregulated US sources has meant that gun crime here is still a major problem compared to countries who share borders with others with similar gun control laws. The majority of gun crime in Canada happens with illegally sourced weapons 85% of which has been sourced to guns purchased in the US. Mexico experiences a similar issue.

Gun pollution spreads over our borders and the US is simply big enough and self obsessed enough to not care. Every democratic nation has it's own version of the US Constitution and unlike when the US Constitution was written, democracies now make up the majority of government systems on the world stage. There are now a lot of democratic societies who have been stable and just fine without massive amounts of citizen gun ownership. In a very real way American gun law structured as it is interferes with our country's ability to address guns on our own democratic and constitutional grounds.

Democracy and freedoms of the kind the US bills itself on is now considered pretty basic worldwide. Anyone operating on an originalist veiw really needs to unbury their head from the sand and realize how much the world has changed since it was written.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

21 to buy a handgun. Rifles you only have to be 18. Quite a few states are like that.

[–] interceder270@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

"Sorry bro, you're going to have to wait for the first amendment to kick in."

"Yeah, we're gonna have to quarter soldiers here. Sorry, you don't get 3rd amendment protections for another month."

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Me too. They just gloss over three fourths of the amendment.

Well regulated.

Milita.

To protect the security of the state.

These words mean nothing to conservatives, they read them right out of the Constitution and then claim they are adhering to strictly to the text.

[–] HessiaNerd@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Depleted Uranium ammo was not a thing until the 40's. Not long enough to have a historical basis for banning civilians from owning them.

[–] Reddit_Is_Trash@reddthat.com 4 points 9 months ago (10 children)

Why do you think law abiding citizens should be subjected to waiting periods to exercise their constitutional rights?

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The constitutional right to acquire arms immediately and without precondition, I see. Just like the constitutional right to say anything, at any time, without any consequences.

[–] stevestevesteve@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

This doesn't remove all background checks, so "immediately and without precondition" is facetious.

I agree with not selling weapons to known maniacs, but I also believe that if the govt knows someone's dangerous enough that they shouldn't own a gun for self defense, they already should have been removed from the general population and arrested/imprisoned etc, as they are still very dangerous to the general population without said firearm.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (17 children)

Why do you think law abiding citizens should be gassed, arrested and shot at for exercising their constitutional right to petition the government against grievances? Because Trump sure enjoyed doing those things and he says he's going to do it even more if he gets re-elected. And then there's the Republican love of cruel and unusual punishments. And, of course, there's Mike Johnson and other Republicans denying that there is or should be a separation between church and state.

Seems like maybe the people who are supposed to protect your constitutional right to own a gun don't really care about other constitutional rights.

[–] Reddit_Is_Trash@reddthat.com 9 points 9 months ago (9 children)

Point out the part of my comment where I said that

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] stevestevesteve@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (7 children)

What a lot of whataboutism. I'm against all of that, too, but I can also be against limits on my rights of self defense.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 6 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Because it makes the world safer. Same reason you need a fence around a pool, even though the pursuit of happiness is protected by the constitution (for me, happiness is unbridled access to a pool).

[–] IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

That is absolutely NOT protected by the Constitution. Anywhere.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Same way as law abiding citizens need to wait 21 years, goes through firearm training, and gone through background check to exercise their constitutional rights. If 30 days is such a long time to wait and considered unconstitutional, why not lower the age requirement to 12 years old? Why need firearm training? Why need background check?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

That's what Republicans want. No gun control regulations at all. Anyone, according to them, should be able to buy a gun at any age at any time anywhere.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (6 children)

I think SCOTUS might reverse that. I don't think there was any recent case concerning waiting periods.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)